The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the motion of former President Donald Trump and five of his fellow plaintiff-appellants to move oral argument in their First Amendment appeal against Twitter and its former CEO Jack Dorsey to Pasadena, California, from San Francisco (see 2305110035), said a clerk’s order Thursday (docket 22-15961). “This case will be placed on the next available Pasadena calendar,” said the order. Twitter and Dorsey took no position on the motion. The plaintiffs’ Los Angeles-based lead counsel asked for the venue change to reduce his out-of-pocket expenses. Trump alleges his First Amendment rights were violated when Twitter permanently banned him for engaging in constitutionally protected speech.

Meta filed a notice of potential tag-along action Thursday to Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, said a Thursday filing (docket 4:22-md-3047). Prince George’s County Board of Education v. Meta Platforms (docket 8:23 -cv1282) “shares common questions of fact and law” with other actions transferred to the MDL, said Meta. Some 14 related cases were added to the MDL case Wednesday and Thursday under U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in U.S. District Court for Northern California in Oakland. The Maryland school district’s Tuesday complaint in U.S. District Court for Maryland in Greenbelt alleges social media platforms Facebook, Instagram, Snap, TikTok and YouTube created a “youth mental health crisis” in the U.S. and claims public nuisance, negligence and gross negligence against the parent companies. Over 300 similar school district cases, in various states of transfer, comprise the member list of the MDL.

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty for Western Louisiana in Monroe signed a minute entry Wednesday (docket 3:22-cv-01213) setting in-person oral argument for May 26 at 9 a.m. CDT on the motion for a preliminary injunction against dozens of Biden administration defendants filed in June 2022 by the Republican attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri. Each side will have one hour of argument, beginning with the plaintiffs, said Doughty’s entry. The time for asking and answering questions from the court won’t be included in the one-hour time limit for arguments, it said. The AGs allege 67 government agencies and officials colluded with Big Tech to censor social media information about the 2016 presidential election and COVID-19 health information. The injunction they seek would bar the defendants from “inducing social-media companies to censor particular contents or to adopt or enforce speech-restrictive content-moderation policies" (see 2304190015).

U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty granted in part plaintiffs Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry (R) and Missouri AG Andrew Bailey’s (R) motion requesting an extension to file their reply brief in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction in their freedom of speech lawsuit against President Joe Biden and nearly 70 government officials and agencies. The Tuesday filing (docket 3:22-cv-01213) in U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana in Monroe said plaintiffs may file a reply brief on or before Saturday, and the hearing will remain for May 26. In their Tuesday memorandum in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for an extension, defendants said plaintiffs’ requested extension of time “would substantially prejudice Defendants because it would result in virtually no time to review and analyze Plaintiffs’ reply brief” and related submissions before the May 26 preliminary injunction hearing (docket 3:22-cv-01213). Defendants are “constrained to oppose” plaintiffs’ motion, unless a short continuance of the preliminary injunction hearing is granted, they said.

Plaintiffs Wise Guys and Wise Guys II filed motions Monday for leave to file a sur-reply to Meta’s reply in support of a motion to transfer and another to Meta’s support of a motion to dismiss a freedom of speech suit “to correct several misstatements and distortions of facts,” said the filing (docket 3:23-cv-00217) in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas. Plaintiffs alleged in a January complaint that Meta engaged in “viewpoint discrimination” (see (Ref:2303210041]), particularly on COVID-19 vaccine information. In a May 1 reply in support of plaintiffs’ motion to transfer the case, Meta said, “Little about the transfer is in dispute,” saying plaintiffs didn’t deny that Meta’s forum-selection clause is “mandatory and applicable.” In their sur-reply, plaintiffs said “to the contrary,” they have repeatedly maintained that Meta’s forum selection clause is neither mandatory not applicable to their complaint. If Meta’s motion to transfer were granted, it would adversely affect plaintiffs’ right to have the case decided under Texas House Bill 20 (HB 20), section 143A, which states a social media platform “may not censor a user, a user’s expression, or a user’s ability to receive the expression of another person” based on viewpoint or geographic location. Meta conceded its motion to transfer would “subvert the application of HB 20 to this dispute,” plaintiffs said. Meta “attacks Plaintiffs for filing the lawsuit in violation of the forum selection clause in its terms of service,” they said, but it didn’t note “its controlling authority presupposes a ‘contractually valid forum selection clause.'" A forum selection clause should be considered unreasonable if its enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum state, they said, saying HB 20 “is just such a statute.”

The Walker family’s product liability claims “should be permitted to continue,” and ZTE’s Oct. 17 motion to dismiss denied “since specific personal jurisdiction exists over ZTE,” said the Walkers’ memorandum in opposition Monday (docket 2:21-cv-00923) in U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana in Lake Charles. The surviving wife and two sons of pastor Frank Walker allege the defective phones Frank Walker used, plus the industry’s coverup of those phones, led to his death from brain cancer in 2020 because they exceeded the FCC’s specific absorption rate limitations for how much RF radiation is absorbed into the human body. ZTE agreed Nov. 1 to stay the briefing on its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction until the court resolved the motion from AT&T, Cricket, CTIA, Microsoft, Motorola and the Telecommunications Industry Association to dismiss the case because the Walkers’ claims are preempted by federal law (see 2211020028). The court on April 18 dismissed, on federal preemption grounds, all claims that the industry covered up information showing many cellphones don’t comply with the SAR standard (see 2304230001). ZTE “has purposefully directed its activities toward Louisiana,” enabling the company “to avail itself of the privileges and protections of conducting business” in the state, said the Walkers’ opposition memorandum. The Walkers’ claims arise out of, and as a result of, ZTE’s contacts with Louisiana, it said. “It would be fair and reasonable” for ZTE “to be held accountable in Louisiana,” it said. “Specific personal jurisdiction exists” over ZTE, and the Walkers’ claims “should be permitted to proceed,” it said. ZTE's reply brief is due May 22.

The Delaware Chancery Court granted Block’s motion for dismissal of a breach of fiduciary duty complaint brought by a Block shareholder, the City of Coral Springs (Florida) Police Officers’ Pension Plan, against CEO Jack Dorsey and his board challenging Block’s $306 million buy of Tidal, the music streaming service associated with Jay-Z. During its due diligence, a transaction committee formed by the Block board to consider the proposed Tidal acquisition learned Tidal “was failing financially, losing its major contracts, and facing an ongoing criminal investigation,” said the memorandum opinion (docket 2022-0091) Tuesday written by Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick. The committee also learned Jay-Z personally loaned Tidal $50 million to help the troubled company through its difficulties and that Dorsey, the former Twitter CEO, was the sole Block management member in support of the acquisition, it said. “Despite the obvious problems with the deal, the committee approved the transaction for $306 million,” it said: “It seemed, by all accounts, a terrible business decision.” But under Delaware law, “a board comprised of a majority of disinterested and independent directors is free to make a terrible business decision without any meaningful threat of liability, so long as the directors approve the action in good faith,” said the memorandum opinion.

With the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considering scheduling August oral argument in San Francisco in former President Donald Trump’s First Amendment appeal against Twitter and its former CEO Jack Dorsey (see 2305050031), Trump and five of his fellow plaintiff-appellants want oral argument moved to Pasadena, said their motion for change of venue Wednesday (docket 22-15961). Defendant-appellees Twitter and Dorsey take no position on the motion, it said. Pasadena is a “more convenient and cost-effective hearing location” for the plaintiffs than San Francisco, said the motion. Oral argument for the plaintiffs will be presented by Los Angeles resident Alex Kozinski, with the Law Office of Andrei Popovici, so scheduling the hearing in Pasadena will reduce the plaintiffs’ “out-of-pocket expenses and significantly reduce their counsel’s time in attending the hearing,” it said. Lead counsel for the defendants Twitter and Dorsey is based in Washington, and therefore would need to travel to either location, it said. Trump alleges his First Amendment rights were violated when Twitter permanently banned him for engaging in constitutionally protected speech.

Pro se plaintiff-appellant Yehuda Herskovic risks dismissal of his 2nd Circuit appeal against Verizon if he doesn’t file the required acknowledgment and notice of appearance form by May 30, said a clerk’s notice Tuesday (docket 23-648). Herskovic filed his notice of appeal April 20, and his acknowledgment and notice of appearance form was due Monday, said the notice. When Herskovic sued Verizon to block an early termination fee that the carrier previously agreed to waive, Verizon successfully compelled his claims to arbitration. The arbitrator ruled in Herskovic’s favor that he wasn’t liable for the termination but denied his request for money damages. That prompted Herskovic to move the district court for an order vacating the arbitrator’s ruling, and it’s the court’s denial of that motion that he’s appealing to the 2nd Circuit.

AT&T withdrew its March 21 motion for an entry of default judgment against Goodman Networks, from which it's seeking a $1.44 million award, including $1.22 million in unpaid fees for enterprise internet services (see 2303220038), said AT&T’s notice Tuesday (docket 4:22-cv-00914) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas in Sherman. It was unknown to AT&T at the time of the March 21 motion that Goodman had filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition Sept. 6 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Northern Texas (docket 22-31641), said the notice. AT&T’s case against Goodman should be stayed until the resolution of the bankruptcy proceeding, it said.